- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Sascha Luck 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

All, in the recent discussion on RPKI, it was stated by the NCC that it would not act on resource registrations (and, by extension, certificates and ROAs) without a valid Dutch court order. According to: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe… ther NCC has blocked changes to registered resources pursuant to "an order from Dutch police". Now, I'm not overly familiar with the Dutch legal system but in ours, a court order is different from a "police order". Considering the implications for, in particular, RPKI; could someone from the NCC confirm that this was, in fact, on foot of a court order? Alternatively, is a "police order" something equivalent, eg an order that must be followed on pain of legal sanction?` Regards, Sascha Luck

11 12

Re: [members-discuss] [#22756] Re: FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 12 Nov '11

12 Nov '11

Security expert Ronald Prince of forensic firm Fox-IT across all Macworld speculated that this action may be related to the rolling up of the DNS gang. "De DNS-servers draaiden op bepaalde ip-adressen. Nu zijn die vervangen door servers van de politie zelf." "The DNS servers were running on certain IP addresses. Now those servers replaced by the police themselves." ah so-called "security expert" and well known sockpuppet of the amerifags, ronald prins, is at it again... when he's not too busy persecuting the international souvereign military order of internet knights that is anonymous, he's always to be found to make some foolish statements in the press. The rolled malware gang has four million PCs worldwide able to infect. This is done through rogue DNS servers. NO -THIS IS DONE THROUGH MICROSOFT WINDOWS-, go and arrest bill gates for selling utter crap that doesn't belong on a network in the first place, and not fixing it on purpose although code is much easier to fix than to maintain a dictionary of search strings for 'known' virus code that exploits it. Prince says that the RIPE-blocking by the Dutch police can ensure that the infected computers keep their connection. Only is it not the rogue machines, but the police servers. " And that solves the problem ... how exactly... the next virus will show up and microsoft continue keep sell crap and isn't even being blamed by this rather pro-american so-called "security" expert. i'd say, flash the god damn biosses with an advertisement that gets them to the mac store, or force install ubuntu if you're already taking over a botnet anyway :P the dutch police gets paid by dutch taxpayers to protect dutch/european interests, not those of mickeysoft or the usa, or to run after people that exploit bugs (probably purposely) not fixed by microsoft to keep their "anti virus industry" buddies in business. i'd say, this whole thing is EASILY solved by a forced update of windows, on THEIR side of the ocean, i see no need to waste further european tax money on whatever that god damn ex-colony of amsterdam wants. (and while we're at the subject, why on earth do we let them sell that crap in our stores ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, support(a)privatelayer.com wrote: > Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, > > > Our tech support department has received your message in good order and we have assigned a ticket number to your request. > > The ticket number assigned is: 22756. We are reviewing your ticket and will reply to it shortly. > > > Best Regards, > > Private Layer INC > Tech Support Department > support(a)privatelayer.com >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Erik Bais 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

Hi Brandon, >>> 1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as >>> may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or >>> similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer >>> data > >It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too) >It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active. Your statement might be true and is also the problem with international ratification of Treaties and the underlying national implementation into the law. In this case, the question would be, what was the actual request from the Police, in order to get some more detail on it. If a preservation of information would have been enough or if a freeze of an account would be required. An online copy of the actual request from the KLPD in that case would be nice, where the personal details can be removed with black marker to protect the innocence etc. (blah blah .. ;-) ) I can only imagine that the operational system of RIPE would not have been designed to comply with anything like a Data retention act in mind. (Off-topic: Which in the Netherlands is still on 12 months btw.) So was the locking of the accounts towards the RIPE systems or freezing of the subnets, was it about the LIR portal, the associated maintainer passwd, or something else, like preventing them from doing changes to rev. dns. ? Or was it about avoiding transfers or changes in the Whois DB ? And instead of dealing with all the fuzz of the above, RIPE NCC might have taken the route of ... disable the accounts and wait ... Which is a perfectly good action imho as it would freeze the evidence present and the people involved would only notice it when they would actually need to make changes. Questions .. questions .. And only a few that know. Erik

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Brandon Butterworth 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

>> 1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as >> may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or >> similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer >> data It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too) It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active. brandon

1 0

Some thoughts I was not able to say at GM-2011
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Hello everybody, At the beginning I'd like to apologize for my poor spoken English which prevented me to clearly state my opinion at GM. It is not related to any problems with EB preventing me to do that! Thank them for the opportunity given and sorry for emotional expressions. I hope that something from my speech at GM was understandable, but to make my position more consistent I'll sum the thoughts I wanted to express. My main concern is about openness of the decisions if we speak about money, not technical and police things. All the three interrelated finance documents (The Activity Plan, which defines the expenses and is the base for the Budget, which defines the balance between the expenses and incomes, and the Charging Scheme as a result of defined incomes to cover expenses) were compiled inside of the RIPE NCC and were not clear to me and (according to several posts here in the list) to several other members. For example, who exactly gave the feedbacks for initial RIPE NCC Proposed New Charging Scheme 2012? The members-discuss list was pristine innocent about this "the current Charging Scheme model is complex and makes it difficult for individual members to easily determine their own fees" complains. Private conversations? Maybe... But it shouldn't in my opinion be private as soon as it relates to all the members! The new published EB email which enables another private channel between a person and the EB is a bad thing according to the logic of my sentences above. The main and the only "panel" for discussion should be either the members-discuss list or new "finance-discuss?" list, opened maybe only to members (I don't mind if it is completely opened). As stated by Nigel Titley, the Chairman of the Executive Board, at the GM the things are going to change to the next GM. The lack of discussions about the documents before GM-2011 was in my opinion related to usefulness and the source reasons in the documents. Speaking about the Activity Plan - we (members) asked the EB about adding cost to each activity in 2007-2008. Without the numbers the Activity Plan is a way of stating things, but not evaluating effectiveness of the services. Discuss "marked on stone" statements is not very rewarding venture. Thankfully the numbers will appear soon in the document. Second point in the matter - the procedure of changing the Activity Plan - it is not exist now and should be invented. There was already the suggestions about it in the list I won't going to repeat them now. Speaking about the Charging Scheme... I'm not against the increase of the amount to pay, I'm against of the misty motivations for the rise and some predictability of expenses. There should be clearly defined "resource classes" included in each membership category, and clearer definition of fairness. (I'd also decide on the consulting about the taxation issue, but it in unrelated thing up to now.) I can give many examples of that but I'm trying to make this message as short as possible. For example, I don't agree with the "free" IPv6: the LIRs would pay for the blocks indirectly, through IPv4 counting, anyway - whom we are going to trick then? The last thing which is the most important to me - the services of the RIPE NCC above the main baseline of "providing unique blocks of numbers and register them on the DB". It is related to the Activity Plan certainly, but I'd like to mention them from different point of view - in term of including some of them in the Charging Scheme. I'm repeating - I'm not against developed services "made in RIPE NCC", think that many of them (not all though) are very useful, but why some of them deserves to be mentioned in the Charging Scheme, the others - not? Why not related to the main activity things should be mentioned in invoices at all? I think of it like "tie in sale", not very pleasant thought of course. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting @ GM 2011
by Brandon Butterworth 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

> The alternative, of course, is to continue with the old charging scheme > as we have used up until now but of course we put together the new > charging scheme as a response to the membership after complaints about > the old one, so I wouldn't expect that to be popular. There will always be some who think the price is too damn high and they should pay less (and in this case others should pay more instead). When you change it you'll make some happier, some will think it's still to high and you'll add others who now think it's too high. The latter two will continue to be heard. Overall the RIPE fees aren't that large and for big ISP are just noise. If there is change that's a sign where to make it. brandon

1 0

activity plan suggestion
by Sergey Myasoedov 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

Hello, there is a proposal for RIPE NCC and Executive board. As there is a criticism of RIPE NCC Activity plan and voting at the GM for the whole plan, I would like to propose to split the Activity plan into several statements and vote for each item of the plan separately. The voting can be done by show of hands directly at the GM. Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey

12 15

Privatelayer Inc
by Nigel Titley 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

Dear Private Layer If there is anybody from Private Layer actually reading this list can they please take their ticketing system OFF it. You are the last member to do this. It is difficult to understand why you are unable to do this. There are two possibilities: 1. No one at Private Layer reads trouble tickets 2. No one at Private Layer knows how to take their ticket system off the list Neither bodes well for your continued viability as a commercial entity. Fondest regards Nigel

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting @ GM 2011
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

At 11:54 07/11/2011 +0100, Lu Heng wrote: >Hi Hank: >They will take money from reserve as I heard in the GM. >It was like 4M(if I was not remember it wrong) shortage Always nice to have reserves, but they tend to dry up after extensive use. I hope the EB has some plans of cost cutting, other than RIPE NCC's ideas of cost cutting such as <sarcasm> taking on a 2MEuro RIPE ATLAS Probe project</sarcasm>. -Hank >On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote: > > At 10:25 07/11/2011 +0000, James Blessing wrote: > >>On 07/11/2011 10:16, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > >> > >> > Can you explain us and to the whole list what will be happen now as I > >> > guess it was the first time since we are a member that the GM don't > >> > adopt the Charging Scheme ?? > >> > >>As was explained at the GM by Nigel, the charging scheme that currently > >>exists would be used leading to an expected revenue shortfall > > > > In most businesses I know of, when there is an expected revenue shortfall, > > cuts are made - either in salary, amount of manpower or in projects. I > > hope RIPE NCC has contingency plans in place. > > > > Regards, > > Hank > > > > > >>J > >>-- > >>James Blessing > >>+44 7989 039 476 > >>Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > >>Limelight Networks > >> > >>---- > >>If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > >>mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > >>general page: > >>https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >> > >>Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > >>here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > >-- >This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >message and including the text of the transmission received.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Oct '11

29 Oct '11

At 11:16 03/10/2011 +0200, Erik Bais wrote: >Hi Jon, > >Without repeating myself in this discussion, I'll just post a url for you >to read from earlier this year on the topic. >http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00154.ht… > >Basically, the members approve the activity schedule for the RIPE NCC. >That means that we also shouldn't bitch about a certain cost, not for >profit doesn't mean free :) We do not get much of a say as to how much budget should be applied for regional meetings, consultancy, training courses, RIPE meetings, marketing, r&d, etc. We are given a budget that increases every year and are told to ratify it - of which only 5% of the membership vote. Most LIRs don't care if the fee is 3KEuro or 10KEuro since it just gets absorbed as a minor cost overhead as passed on to customers. And RIPE knows it. -Hank >If we don't agree..either we should have a look at how certain costs are >being made or we should scrap certain activities. > >In the end.. we're only talking about 6.25 euro per LIR per day. > >Regards, >Erik Bais > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses.

26 45

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Hello everybody, >From the counts it seems that the "not much increase" paradigm is not in the intentions of the new charging scheme. While I'd prefer to see the numbers in percents of amount to pay, the counting shows - the new charging scheme is way off the initial good feeling. (I hope the counting are fair - i.e. includes independent resources like PI and ASN). I'd like also hear some words from RIPE NCC about several suggestions voiced in the list. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jochem de Ruig Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:18 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Dear all, About 40% of members will pay less and about 60% of members will pay more. Pay less in EUR less than 1,000 0% 1,000 - 500 9% 499 - 0 31% Pay more 1 - 499 32% 500 - 999 3% 1,000 - 1,999 19% 2,000 - 5,000 4% more than 5,000 1% Regards, Jochem On Oct 12, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: On 12/10/2011 13:56, Mike Hollowell wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: 30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. 100% M, L& XL moving up. Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise. I did talk about the costs and not the membership category. Let me see if Jochem can give us some figures on what percentage of members will see *cost* increase and decrease. Nigel

1 0

Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012
by Sascha Luck 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Hi, the proposed CS2012 contains the following footnote to the table for the calculation of membership categories: "Note 1: All IPv4 and IPv6 addresses (Provider Independent and Provider Aggregatable) are taken into account." For clarification, does this mean all PI space managed by the LIR on behalf of End Users, or only PI space directly assigned to the LIR? If the former, what is the justification to charging for this space twice, once through moving into a higher category and again through the EUR50 annual charge for Independent Resources? rgds, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

4 11

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Then - could you explain - why my question about why selling ASN per-number is not violating the current policy was not answered? Or you would deny this question too? > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

5 5

Side tracking on Charging schema and Auto-mail responders ...
by Erik Bais 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

If one would like to put a proposal forward that RIPE would actually increase the cost category of a LIR that replies to send emails on the general mail lists with a ticketing system with at least 1 category for the year ahead ... Is that something that one can ask for to vote on the AGM or is that something that needs a PDP proposal ? Kind regards, Erik Bais ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

FW: Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

-----Original Message----- From: Potapov Vladislav Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:27 PM To: 'Nigel Titley' Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 Nigel, Yes, LIR can charge the end user for this service, but the artificial "protection" measures have led to strange "side effects", which I'll try to explain in the real numbers of one of the LIRs I administer: What the LIR has: PA: 1x /19 AS: 1 Client PI: 1x /23 Client AS: 1 As you can see - nothing special and abusive? But let's think about that once more: - according to the PA allocation and LIRs ASN I'd pay in 2012: Category=M, >20 but <=19 IPv4, >8 but <=16 ASN = 2000 euro + 50 euro (1 ASN)= 2050 euro - serving the client's resources in addition: Category=L, >19 but <=16 IPv4, >16 but <=32 ASN = 3000 euro + 150 euro (2 ASN + PI)= 3150 euro So the "protective measures" costs the LIR legally serving only [1 PI assignment with ASN] additional 1100 euro or 550 euro for a "independent resource". Is it fair? How could the LIR count how much the client should pay for the resources if every year RIPE NCC invents new charging scheme with such huge deviations? IF (I pointed out once more - IF) the scheme should be voted - it MUST have some "independent resources margin" like it has about ASNs, but not pile up all addresses chunks. I should clarify my position about the three supporting documents listed in the GM 2011 agenda. - I'm not against rising budget, but the rise should be clearly explained. In this case the Activity Plan should have all the necessary cost values, the Budget - clear explanation what the additional expenses will go, Charging Scheme should be stable to be able to predict LIRs expenses. (Side note: if a company due to a very good business plan has unnecessary 1k-2k euro to pay for bad work of financial department of RIPE NCC, it could as well send the money to me - I'm very welcomed this motion. :) ). - The proposed Charging Scheme has not achieved declared goal - simplicity and in my opinion became even more tough to understand and have many dishonest issues. Then for the 2012 the Charging Scheme should be saved from 2011. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:52 PM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging > Scheme 2012 > > On 12/10/2011 18:48, Sascha Luck wrote: > > Hi Jochem, > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:35:38PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > >> For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a > larger > >> category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the > >> categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial > over a > >> requesting a /18 of PA space. > > Right, this makes kind of sense for PI space assigned to the > requesting > > LIR. What about space requested on behalf of end users - the LIR > does > > not benefit from the use of this space, in fact after 2007-01 it > merely > > handles the request on behalf of the end user and the NCC. > > > The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am > I > confused? > > Nigel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

2 1

Fwd: [ncc-announce] [NOC #EXN-767-26459]: 128.0.0.0/16 configured as martian: Please update your routers
by Alfredo Sola 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Does this set a new record? These mor^H^H^Hcolleagues have their RIPE-subscribed address redirected to their ticketing system, AND this Fabien guy who receives the new ticket notifications has set an auto-responder that respects neither a mailing list, nor his own ticketing system. I have to confess that I am beginning to be rather unpolite with this kind of situation. If I had nothing better to do... Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "postmaster(a)internet-fr.net" <noc(a)fmn.uk.net> > Asunto: [ncc-announce] [NOC #EXN-767-26459]: 128.0.0.0/16 configured as martian: Please update your routers > Fecha: 13 de octubre de 2011 10:45:09 GMT+02:00 > Para: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > Responder a: noc(a)fmn.uk.net > > Bonjour, > Je suis actuellement en cong?, de retour mercredi 19 Octobre. En cas d'urgence, merci de contacter notre service support au +33 1 64 53 17 98. > Cordialement, > > Hi, > I'm in vacation until Wednesday 19th Oct. You can reach our support team at this phone number: +33 1 64 53 17 98. > regards, > > Fabien Dedenon > Internet Fr > > > > Ticket Details > Ticket ID: EXN-767-26459 > Department: Network Operations (NOC) > Type: Issue > Status: Open > Priority: Medium > > Support Center: http://helpdesk.fmn.uk.net/index.php? > > Cordialement, > > Hi, > I'm in vacation until Wednesday 19th Oct. You can reach our support team at this phone number: +33 1 64 53 17 98. > regards, > > Fabien Dedenon > Internet Fr > > > > Ticket Details > Ticket ID: EXN-767-26459 > Department: Network Operations (NOC) > Type: Issue > Status: Open > Priority: Medium > > Support Center: http://helpdesk.fmn.uk.net/index.php? -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Oct '11

12 Oct '11

> Complication was further > introduced by 2007-01 and we put off implementing this for an additional > year under the principle of least surprise. If you need to charge to make people use it effectively just put it on our bill like everything else. Having to faff with clients signing contracts was surprise and not wanted, trying to make clients become LIR/direct RIPE customers was not wanted. > We also have to work within the constraints of the Dutch tax > system, which eliminates certain options, as we've seen. Finally we, the > board, have a legal duty, affecting us personally (yes, that means they > take my house away if the RIPE NCC gets into difficulty), to run the > business of the RIPE NCC in a prudent and legal fashion. Move it to UK and make a limited company then, that's a crazy risk to have to take on personally regards brandon ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

FW: budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 12 Oct '11

12 Oct '11

Hello everyone, The activity plan is almost useless as soon as it doesn't include any expenses. The biggest part of the so called "plan" is a copy from previous years' plans and there is no mention why the budget for executing the plan should be raised and for what needs particularly. The community is asking for the information for many years and many years the "plan" exists in the pristine clear from expenses form. Regards, Potapov Vladislav Ru.iiat From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:30 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 On 11/10/2011 10:18, Geert Hauwaerts wrote: I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a responsible budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we should take a moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC has taken on itself. This is why we circulate the activity plan well in advance of setting the budget and the charging scheme. We typically get no response to the activity plan at all. I do take on board Kurtis' comments about making the activity plan more transparent with regards to costs of individual activities and we will ask the RIPE NCC to make this clearer. Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members feel they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they might wish to vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. RIPE NCC board/RIPE WG activities take up roughly 2 days per *week* of my time. I'm lucky to have an employer that is happy with this. However, as I made clear, this discussion blew up at the time of the month when I happen to have to spend a couple of days full time on the day job. Apologies for this. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at all. Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more than average middle-salaried worker. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM > To: Nigel Titley > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to > the list and what the members want. > And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel free > to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in > person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) > > Best regards, > > ck > > > > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > >> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see > what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest > assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as > much as possible within the constraints we have. > > Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > > > As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and > take > > notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to > try > > and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just > the > > dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > > > Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > > comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > > before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board > work. > > > > Nigel > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

10 10

Electronic voting.
by Pawel Tyll 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Why is electronic voting made so complicated? Why can't it be a part of LIR portal? In who's interest lies reduction of votes given? ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Yes, it is voted for, but what was the words preceding the vote? In the slides there were many "proves" that the current scheme is a catastrophe (which was a complete lie, because the current scheme didn't use the right factors in the presentation intentionally - after the presentation we discussed the matter and many RIPE NCC members agreed that) and if we didn't vote for new scheme the world would die completely. :) I know also that there was big lobby in the GM. As soon as there was voting - nothing could be done against it, but many people know - the intention of the decision was bad! Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:38 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:32:00PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > I was there, and the change of the charging scheme was discussed for > *three* consecutive meetings, and it was voted for, and received the > majority of votes. > > The change to per-piece billing for PI and AS is came with the adoption > of 2007-01 and had nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the budget > (which it didn't, the LIR categories and fees were adjusted to make > this neutral in regards to the overall budget). > > Of course there are people that do not like any change that will > directly affect their business model (getting lots of PI for free and > selling for > money) - and this is why the change was announced well in advance, and > voted for(!). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Dear Richard, You can look at the presentation by himself. It IS a fact of lie! The "current scheme" was not adopted for rising expenses while the other schemes - was. If you CAN read right - I'm not accusing Gert in the decision (it was not his decision anyway)- just in wrong position in the presenting of the possibilities. Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was forged - and personally you knew that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:29 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:24:22PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was > introduced. > > Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging > > scheme should be changed > > Not true. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

See inline: > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thilo Bangert > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so great > that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more > members to shoulder the burden. Let's see what does it means for my company as small member in 2011: The budget should be increased by 100% * (19317-17891)/17891 ~ 8%. My membership fee should be increased (like 27% of other former small members according the charging scheme) from 1800 (+150 for my ASN+(ASN+PI)for a client) to 3000 (+150 for the same things). 100%*(3150-1950)/1950 ~61.5%. Can you prove your words about "the individual membership fee is not (as much) [increased]"? > also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > actions decided upon by the community. Maybe it's better to vote which actions should stay next year than just fiddling about immortal RIPE activity "decided by the community"? > > How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in shaping > these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting meetings and > trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any involvement > at all... Wrong assumption (at least according to me). I don't like to have the conversations become personal. But could you explain - why the priceless RIPE staff can live only in 5* hotels while they are out of RIPE NCC office (for meetings, trainings, business)? Or why for a group of 12 people the training courses is planned in the 5* room facility? Nobody asked for full stop of meetings and trainings, just increasing the expenses seems chic at some time. And if you really read all messages here you should know, that there are many suggestions, not only optimizing trainings and meetings. I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was introduced. Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging scheme should be changed (all had agreed that we could live with old one and have enough budget), why ASN selling is not "per resource" scheme (really the main argument of RIPE NCC against "flat fee" now) and so on. Empty meaning words as answers - the words we see here in the discussion again. > run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the small LIRs > that profit from it and that is a good thing. Several people asked for EXACT COUNTINGS. As soon as you suggested doing math - give us problem situation! > the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. The same as above - what is exact expenses and what for the increasing expenses will go? What are going to be "new level of service" in numbers? > are much welcome investments well worth their money. By whom? > and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well > represented as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. You are going to feel trouble when at the next GM (maybe not the exactly next, but nearest) the quiet majority will be unable to outcount the active dissenting. I'm going to be at the incoming GM and will ask very uneasy questions. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by Artem Buglak 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

11.10.2011 17:02 пользователь "James Blessing" <jblessing(a)llnw.com> написал: > > On 11/10/2011 13:51, Artem Buglak wrote: > >I haven't had a chance to catch routing registry training in > > Russia for last 3 years (on my memory neither Moscow nor St.Petersburg > > hosted those courses since 2008), not to mention how difficult it may be > > to attend any training courses for LIRs in far eastern parts of Russia. > > Good thing there is one later this year then... > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses > > J Hmph... I've checked before sending =) no RR training for Moscow - just LIR and IPv6 for LIR > > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0